and stay up-to-date on everything happening in washington each day. subscribe using the qr code or visit c-span.org/connect to subscribe anytime. >> next, senators rob portman of ohio and chris murphy of connecticut debated key issues facing the u.s. including the economy, immigration, and gun violence. that is part of the bipartisan senate project and hosted by george washington university in d.c.. >> good evening. thank you for joining us on what is turning into a very busy newsnight and hopefully tonight will be no exception.

i want to welcome you to the jack morton auditorium on the campus of george washington university in our nations capital. i am nikole killion. tonight's debate is the second in a series, part of the senate project which is a partnership between the bipartisan policy sector to her, the orangey hatch center, and the edward kennedy center. these organizations are giving senators a forum to debate the issues, exchange ideas, and where possible, together on some of the major issues of our time. the audience has promised remain silent. i will hold you to that, except for right now i would ask you to please welcome senator rob portman, republican from ohio, and senator chris murphy, democrat from connecticut.

senator portman, we will have you begin on the topic of inflation and the economy. sen. portman: thank you for moderating and i appreciate gw hosting this. i see some of our staff. i told my staff they had to be here. i also want to thank the hatch foundation and the kennedy institute for what they do to discourage partisanship and encourage finding common ground. warren was a dear friend of mine and i got to know so that are kennedy when i was in the bush administration they exemplify that in their own ways. finally the bipartisan policy center who i work very closely with during the infrastructure legislation. i worked with them on the electoral count act issues. i was asked by the bipartisan policy center to do this and i said maybe. i said who are you talking about having.

i recommended somebody who is more progressive and with whom i have a lot of respect but whom i also disagree on policy challenge. the biggest topic by far, it is all about inflation and the economy in terms of going into recession and the economic growth, but is really inflation. it is food, it is everything. my contention is we do not have to be here. we were already in a tough situation out of the first phase of covid when you had a constriction on the supply side. as the economic students know it is about the mismatch between demand and supply. we should do everything we can to loosen up the supply side

which i would argue the blighted administration has not done, but in the -- we blew it in march of last year. about six months ago we passed the biggest spending bill in the history of the congress that said we would provide a lot of stimulus to the economy at a time the economy was already picking up. the congressional budget office -- they told us by june 30 we would be back to economic growth pre-pandemic, which was pretty good. yet the democrats and divided administration insisted on this package which was $1.9 trillion which caused a lot of the inflationary pressures we are now seeing because it increased demand to the point with the supply coming out of the first phase of covid, they cannot keep up. it was not just those folks on my side of the aisle who said it would be a problem. so was larry summers. the reason is the economists

realized we were already beginning to improve and now we see this reconciliation bill and i oppose it primarily because of the tax provisions. i think it is a big mistake to raise taxes at a time we are trying to get the economy back on track and deal with inflationary pressures. if you look at this corporate minimum tax as the congressional office tells us, that tax is bourne by a lot of people. the tax hike is taken out of wages and salaries, and second prizes will increase at a time we are suffering from 9% plus inflation, to increase prices seems to be a huge mistake. manufacturers will be hit the hardest. the effect on the national association of manufacturers

says it will result in the loss of 218,000 jobs. not a good thing. the second quarter of negative economic growth. we can argue about whether it is really a recession. i can tell you people i know back home, people in fixed income, it is already a recession. it already was one before we have the latest numbers. people are hurting, the economy is troubled, and yet it feels like we are doing the exact same thing 16 months ago which is to say that government should be spending more and taxing more at a time we should be getting out from under this inflationary and recessionary pressures. how about you? right on time. sen. murphy: let me just extend my thanks to you, nikole for moderating this conversation and to gw and the kennedy institution. i got the chance to serve with senator hatch but not senator

kennedy and he set a model for spirited partisans, they had convictions they held firm, but they knew their job was to argue their case and then sit down and try to find a path forward. i am glad that rob made the suggestion to bring me on stage with him. it is true we have often very different ideologies, different approaches to problems, but we are often close collaborators. we have worked together on significant foreign policy matters, we have written legislation on domestic manufacturing policy. i was proud to support his leadership in making the biggest commitment to infrastructure spending in 30 years and i was proud to have him as a supportive of our recent effort to change america's gun laws and invest in mental health. i hope you will see both sides of the senate. spirited argument, but also an effort to find common ground. on the economy, there are two

sides of the story. this is an economy that is admittedly on fire. we have 3.6% unemployment, virtually unprecedented. we have wages growing. any quality shrinking. fewer kids in poverty than any time in recent memory. on the others either is no doubt costs are increasing, inflation has been a consequence of a fast-growing economy. the economy did not grow as fast as it did last year in any time since 1984. we need to recognize both sides of this story. it is also true that inflation is not a uniquely american problem. inflation is global because most of this is caused by a global supply chain crunch as a result

of our manufacturing sector and our system of distribution that cannot keep up with demand coming back so fast after it bottomed out during covid. if you look at a left-leaning government like the united states, there is inflation. you look at center government like you see in franch, you see a right-leaning government in britain, you see inflation. it does not mean we do not have an obligation to attack this problem, but it is evidence of the fact some of this is dictated -- that will address this cost crunch for consumers. this is a piece of legislation that will dramatically reduce health-care costs, in particular for seniors, who will never pay more than $2000 out-of-pocket. this is legislation by investing in renewable energy can bring down energy prices for consumers by 10%.

we do ask a handful of the most profitable corporations to pay at least 50% of their income in taxes to pay their fair share. that is what is necessary in order to deliver a cost per lease to the people that need it most. it is also why even the wall street journal came to the conclusion that this legislation we will be considering this week will have at the inflationary impact, in part because it spends less money than it takes in, but also because it is going to end up putting money in the pockets of a lot of americans that desperately need it today. there was a cost crisis for americans before prices started rising, and my hope is we try to seek common ground that we will not be able to get on the same page this week as opposed to the inflation reduction act.

it is true that sooner rather than later we need to recognize that whether prices aren't raising by eight cents or 2%, there are a lot of americans who cannot afford to live, cannot afford to buy groceries, medicine, and therein lies opportunity for bipartisan cooperation. sen. murphy: an interesting different analysis of the same bill, but what when you look at the what the economic survey has said about the bill, it does not decrease inflation. the next two is two years it increases inflation at a time we should be doing just the opposite. it is no wonder because it does provide more stimulus, but also puts taxes on the economy. i talked earlier about the fact that half of the taxes will be borne by manufacturers. we just passed legislation called chips plus to help u.s. manufacturers be more competitive. if you look at the economic growth numbers that came out last week, we had a .9%

reduction in economic growth so it was a small but a decrease in economic growth driven by lack of investment. 13.5% decrease in investment. that is exactly what this legislation will do is decrease investment. it says to companies that have taken advantage of the tax preferences, meaning you can write off your equipment, which is why a half of the people will be manufacturers. you can no longer take that reduction. why would we want to do that at this time? if anything we would want to find a bonus to encourage people to invest and plan equipment, so we can be more competitive. these are real issues that we will have to debate this week. my hope is we end up with a different bill that has been proposed because of these realities. stock option plans would be effective. tech companies as well rely on

stock other than salaries. we are told you cannot take the full deduction so it discourages people from offering those kinds of plants. it will also have the effect, not just on manufacturing, but other industries to the point that 218,000 people lose their jobs in the manufacturing sector alone. this is something congress will take a look at and we will hopefully be able to pass some amendments to make this more workable and a time of high inflation. sen. portman: corporations upright -- sen. murphy: corporations across the country enjoyed this enormous windfall from the trump tax. they wound up seeing a historic reduction in liability. the claim was this was going to stimulate the economy so much the bill would end up reading and more money than it cost. that did not turn out to be the case. it drove up deficits. also created a single case of

unfairness among the american people that their their costs going up but the tax liability of corporations bow down. what we are asking is a limited program of relief. what we are talking about is the 200 richest, most profitable corporations, we are simply asking them not to pay the rate of 21% or 22%, just to pay a minimum of 15%. will take some of that money and apply to deficit reduction. 300 million dollars of deficit -- $300 billion of deficit reduction. then we will take the rest of that money and give it to consumers that are having trouble paying their bills. we will invest in seniors were going bankrupt through prescription drug cost appreciation. one third of seniors have to moderate their prescription drugs, have to pad their pills

and take less of what is prescribed. nano senior pays more than $200,000 a year. the targeted torque -- the targeted corporate tax increase is making sure those profitable companies pay something intact. i think people will support that bill because that money has been used to deliver relief to the pockets of people who need it. nikole: we will move on to the next topic, a topic you are familiar with comic-con safety. you have three minutes. sen. murphy: i am grateful to senator portman for being a supporter of the bipartisan safer communities act. it has been 30 years since congress has passed any legislation addressing the epidemic of gun violence in this nation. what we have learned is it is inescapable matter where you

live, you can wake up and have your life fundamentally transformed by a mass shooting, by a homicide, by an accidental shooting. it is not a coincidence that the rate of murder in the rate of mass shooting has increased in this country as these dangerous weapons have proliferated all over the nation. i have two kids, a fourth-grader the same age as the young kids in uvalde and iva middle school are, the fact that they have to think about their safety, they have to think about where they will run and hide if a shooter has to walk through the doors is heartbreaking. i am proud of what we did together. it is an example of how congress can come together. it is not enough. i do not understand why congress cannot do the two things the american public has achieved consensus on. first is universal background checks.

make sure every single gun purchase go through a background check to make sure criminals and people who are seriously mentally ill are not getting their hands on them. that is supported by 90% of americans. the study show this is the most impactful and trying to reduce the rate of violence in this nation. second, get these weapons of war off the streets, these weapons that have become the weapon of choice for mass shooters. in ar-15's non-essential if you want to hunt for protect your home. it is essential if your intent is to kill a dozen or two dozen people, and so to me my job is not done. if anything it shows to the american public we have the capability to rise to the occasion. the fact all we were able to do with these incremental changes

shows you how much power the gun industry and the gun lobby still has in washington, it shows you how broken the institution still is around these basic issues of public safety and shows you how much more work we have to do. this epidemic cannot be measured in terms of the numbers of lives lost. every single child in this nation is going through a level of trauma and anxiety, especially those that drop in more dangerous neighborhoods and places like cleveland or new haven fearing for their life every day they walked to school. we have an obligation to build upon the success of the bipartisan bill but take the next steps necessary to keep our communities and kids safer. sen. portman: this is a little bit of a kumbayah moment. chris is passionate about this issue. he has had issues in his own state, i've had in mind, it is

heartbreaking. many colleagues are happy to have this issue debated and discussed and yet to find common ground is not their interest. i know senator murphy was under a lot of pressure because i talked to some of his colleagues who were unhappy with him because he was willing to say let's get something done. that is why i joined the effort because i thought it was the right attitude and i thought the policies would help to address the real issue. in doing so he did not get everything done he indicates he would have wanted, but more importantly for a lot of his politics and some of his constituents they thought this is selling short of what we should be doing. i know it wasn't easy. i think the most important part of the bill is probably the mental health provisions. we encourage red flag with due

process that is a mental health issue. the amount of funding we have put into these community health centers for behavioral health and mental health is unprecedented, and people do not recognize that part of the bill because there are other aspects that had to do with the gun issue. this is where the problem derives. as i am sure most people know 54% of gun deaths are suicides. beyond that, each of these horrific mass shootings, when you dig into the issues, there is a mental health component in every case, just as there is in uvalde. people who are left out of the system and who have been in a position to get help, or if they are not in a position to get help they are not being required to get help, that is why the legislation is so important, not just the mental health funding and the ability to access these

community health centers and so on, but also the encouraging of state staff laws in place for intervention. the other part of this we do not talk about as much and we should is what happens every night in our nations capital. chicago being famous for this. cleveland has one of the higher homicide rates as a percentage of our population. recently columbus, ohio did a study of gun violence and it was a deep report. i found it fascinating. it found there are 17 gangs in columbus that comprise 480 total members, that is .05% of the city's population. they are confirmed to be or suspected to be involved in 46% of the homicides, either as victims or as perpetrators or both. this is the gun violence that we do not hear about. obviously this is where most people are dying from gun violence outside of suicide,

which is primarily inner cities, primarily gang violence directly related in ohio and other states to the drug trade which is -- and people protecting their turf. that is a bigger issue that has to be addressed. sen. murphy: i was with the mayor of one of our bigger cities in connecticut a few weeks ago and his entire career has been in law enforcement. it was a police officer and a police chief and he told me the story of illegal guns in waterbury, connecticut. he says when i started out as a patrol officer it was a big deal when we picked up an illegal gun in the city or a traffic stop or went to a house for a domestic disturbance. 10 years ago it started to become a more regular occurrence. every weekend we would run into an illegal gun or two. today we find them every single day. it just shows you how anymore weapons are in circulation.

so many of those are illegal weapons, weapons that get bought in state with loser background check laws in gun shows or online and then brought to states with tougher laws. in order to get our hands wrapped around this full epidemic, including the violence that happens in our cities, we have to do something about universal background checks. i think rob for what he said. he took a risk as well. republicans had to go up against opposition to this bill. that is no small thing for the 15 republicans that supported it. he mentioned the mental health spending. i've mixed feeling about the inclusion of the big mental health spend it a bill about gun violence. i worry that it creates this impression there is a link between mental illness and violence when in fact people

with mental illness are much more likely to be the victims of violence than the perpetrators. i think it is an important part of the bill, it will save a lot of lives, but we have to be careful about making too direct of a link at a time when we are trying to overcome the stigma that still surrounds people with mental illness diagnosis. sen. portman: the focus is on those perpetrators and getting them the care they need. it is undeniable when you look at these mass shootings. every case goes back to someone who did not have access to or if they had access to did not take advantage and how you get people -- but on illegal guns in the broader issue of crimes, we have an exposure of crime in our cities. it has come along with covid. we also have an explosion of overdoses coming from illegal drugs, primarily fennel, which

is a synthetic opioid coming from china to the united states for so long. about two thirds of the overdose in ohio and around the country in most recent years which we have numbers were fentanyl related. cocaine, heroin, meth, it is all out there, but increasing than the cartels are turning to fennel. because it is so powerful. it is now being made into pills and it is so lucrative that for these cartels in these criminal organizations in these countries who are associated with the cartels, it is a lot to protect. this has led to a lot of violence. that is a great segue to our border discussion, as well, which may come next. nikole: that is correct and you may start. you have three minutes. sen. murphy: well done.

sen. portman: we have an unprecedented number of people coming across the southern border seeking to come to the united states unlawfully. they come to the border and are met by the border patrol. about 40% are turned away under title 42, which the administration wants to do away with. the rest are allowed to come into the country -- the number of people who are encountered by the border patrol over the past three months has been unprecedented. over 200,000 people. we have had people come unlawfully to the border this year than we have the last fiscal bang year. along with that has come this absolute flood of drugs. if you look at the seizures of drugs, they are unprecedented. in may alone there were enough

fentanyl seized at the southern border to kill 200 billion americans. it is coming across and two ways , one is trucks and cars. at our border we are not doing the proper screening, only about 2% of cars and 50% of commercial traffic is being screened out all. the bad guys know this. these transnational criminal organizations are using that. if you have bid on the border as i have, i am the ranking member of the homeland security committee and have ridden with the border patrol and talked with customs and border protection, people who are responsible for protecting our country. it is overwhelming and the cartels are using decoys to move drugs across. one night when i was on the border in el paso we were listening to the radio and they say there is a group about the cross at this one point and so the border patrol is focused on that.

unfortunately when they got to that point the larger group came across a mayor does go away dressed in black backpacks -- a mile or two away dressed in black backpacks. most would say the majority of drugs are going through, especially because the border is so open. it is a crisis. back in the obama administration when it was not nearly as bad they called it a crisis. this administration cannot muster up the courage to say it is a crisis. it is also one most americans look at and shake their head. we have an opportunity for people to come here legally. we take over 900,000 people a year into this country. i am a big proponent of immigration. we cannot continue to have this wallace movement of people across the southern border. recently over 50 people were

found dead in the back of a semi truck that had been locked into the semi truck by their traffickers, unable to escape in the summer heat. these numbers continue to grow. this year they believe there'll be 600 were 700 people that will died crossing the desert in one of these trucks or otherwise. even a couple of years ago it was in the tens, 15, 20, 30 people. it is not that it is just a massive movement of drugs across our borders, it is not just the other contraband that goes back and forth, including guns, it is the fact this is not a humane policy and traffickers are taking advantage and exploiting them and we need a legal system that works and will have more chance to talk about that in the next 90 seconds. i think sen. murphy: -- sen. murphy: i think it is important

to talk about how the greatness of america is tied up in our willingness to bring people to the country fleeing persecution or destitution. we are almost all here children of immigrants. immigrants ourselves and the future greatness is wrapped up in our ability to continue that legacy. i know rob believes that as well. while i do not put senator portman in this category, i worry there are many people today inside the republican party who do not want to solve the issues at the border, who do not want to solve the issues of 11 to 12 billion people here without documentation but want to keep this issue open as a political wedge or a rallying cry, a mechanism to make people fear those that look different from them. i think this is a worrying moment. if you look at our ability to try to keep up with the rise of

china, there are no ways to do that unless you continue to bring to america the best people from all around the world. senator portman is also right that the numbers are high this year. they were also very high in 2019 when president trump was in office. they are higher today. that is in large part because of this title 42 process, which turns people background and sends them back across the border without prosecution or the chance to apply for asylum. what you have seen is this quadrupling of the number of people who are coming back to the border for a second time or third time or fourth time. the presentations at the border are high. many of them are individuals who are coming over and over. it is also true we are seizing more fentanyl and more drugs at the ports of entry.

that is because we are making investments. we are finally putting technology at the ports of entry to catch these traffickers. the real tragedy is that for four years of the trump administration, president trump was so focused on building this wall that frankly does very little to capture the trafficking that we delayed, making a lot of the investments that were necessary at the ports of entry. the briefings i've gotten tell me that over 90% of the illegal drug trade is coming in through this ports of entry, not through the portions of the border that do not have any barriers. we will continue to make those investments, but i take up senator portman's challenge which is to impose a rules-based immigration system which is both fair and humane. but that requires republicans coming to the table to talk about comprehensive immigration reform, not just building a wall, but figuring out a better way to allow more people to come

here legally, what to do with folks who are living in the shadows today. this debate can't be just about the threat immigrants pose to this country. it has to be about the the opportunity we have to size our cash to write size our immigration laws -- to write size our immigration laws. to be smarter about legal pathways. that benefits the nation as a whole. sen. portman: we found common ground tonight. republicans as a rule, and certainly i am very interested in expanding legal immigration. when we try to do that, we often find ourselves unable with visas, for example this high technology we passed, this latest legislation, we put something in place that would help to staple the green card for people in stem disciplines, and i think that is all good. but we have to do something about this unlawful current system that is serving nobody except the traffickers. the administration made specific decisions when they came in to

change everything. you mentioned that president trump had a lot of illegal entries coming in in 2019, he changed policies to the point where when the biden administration came in, the border was essentially secure. by that, i mean that it was a small percentage of the current flow of people, drugs, and contraband. because policies worked. the main change was dealing with the asylum policy. right now we have such a wide open asylum that people can claim asylum, come for eight years, if they get appeals, maybe six or eight years. if they don't, maybe four or five years, before they even have their first hearing with an immigration judge. the backlog is 1.5 million people in that system. it's no wonder people are staying. also the biden administration has chosen not to deport people. removals have virtually ended. that is not a lawful system as well. president obama, those who entered unlawfully, removed

about 65% of those. president biden, 5%. when the biden administration came in, there was 70%. these changes have consequences. i think it's good to have a comprehensive approach, but we have got to have a secure southern border first. sen. murphy: i have a different read on why our presentations at the border dropped off in 2020. i would argue that was covid. not trump's border policies all of a sudden overnight becoming effective. those numbers dropped off as soon as covid became the national emergency and title 42 was initially imposed. people just stopped moving during those first six months. and productively, presentations at the border fell. but again, the senator is right that the amount of time it takes to get through the asylum

process is too long. that is why we put money in this last budget to start to clear that backlog. but i will tell you, that is a fight republicans were not necessarily willing to put dollars into clearing that backlog. that's why president biden proposed a new way to process asylum-seekers, so they can get through that system faster, a reform being opposed right by many republicans. we can work together to speed up the asylum process but we have to work together. the last thing i would say about this is the conditions in central america and mexico drive the migration. i know this. there are some that believe that it is the policies of the american presidents by which people decide to make this journey.

it is by and large the conditions in which people live. one of the worst decisions president trump ever made was cutting off help to central american nations to help them gain control of their security situation. hopefully that is something we can agree on on a bipartisan basis. part of the policy should be assisting nations like those in the northern triangle to keep their citizens at home by increasing security and economic opportunity. nikole: finally, senator murphy, we will conclude with our last topic of the evening. protecting individual liberties. you have three minutes. sen. murphy: i know this is a difficult and sensitive issue. i wanted to talk about it today because it's probably the topic most of my constituents in connecticut want to discuss with me right now. i thought, to be honest, it was important to put on the table today. the heart of what it means to be an american is this idea of liberty, personal freedom, that the government should not tell you what choices you should make, should not dictate to us

about how we live our lives. but the folks i represent in connecticut are really worried about a new ethos in congress and on the supreme court that seeks to put government more and more in charge of the decisions we make about our bodies, about our personal lives, and to take choice away from us. the most personal choice we have to make is when to have a child. the issue of abortion is hotly contested. i completely understand people who make the decision that they are morally opposed to abortion. but because it is so divisive, because it is so anchored in personal morality it is the last subject government should be dictating to individuals. that question of whether to proceed with the pregnancy should be the choice of the

individual in consultation with her family and doctor. i worry this is the tip of the iceberg. in that dobbs decision, the court previewed that they may, very shortly, come after other protections that have been long in law, some more recent, whether it be the protection to have access to contraception, birth control, or the recent protection to marry whoever you love regardless of sexual orientation. my belief is this is a time where we need to step up as a body for the basic idea of personal liberty and freedom, something republicans talk about a lot as well as democrats. that means i think we need to act with urgency in the united states senate to pass legislation that codifies roe. i'm glad to see bipartisan legislation introduced in the senate talking about bipartisan

compromise. bipartisan legislation to codify roe and give that decision back to families, make the decision for themselves. we have to act with similar speed on legislation to protect access to contraception and birth control, make sure states can't ban gay marriage. some may say those are illusory threats. the supreme court has not acted, nothing to worry about. that is what we heard in the lead up to the dobbs decision. those justices came to the hill and said, you do not have anything to worry about, precedent is important to us. now, we have half the states in the nation in which women can't receive the full range of services. this is a moment where we can come together and stand up for that basic unifying issue of personal freedom and liberty. sen. portman: personal freedom and liberty. republicans obviously value that, and many of my constituents were nervous with our gun safety legislation

because they thought their personal liberties were being directly affected. i would argue they were not, and i have heard this discussion with people back home who value the second amendment. as do i. i don't think it was abridged by that. i think it focused on this notion of keeping guns out of the hands of dangerous people, and the mental health components we talked about. but personal liberty. mandates, regulations, republicans are constantly fighting against the imposition of more upon our country and citizens, because we do believe personal liberty is very important. it was an interesting way to describe what you are talking about. in terms of abortion, it is an issue that's very emotional, people have strong views on both sides. one thing i have found interesting is since the dobbs decision, there is a sense that the american people are all on one side of this issue. that is simply not true. in fact, when you look at some

of the data, it indicates from -- including from planned parenthood's own research arm, 71% of americans support limits on abortion. yes, they oppose reversing roe by about 55%, but when asked about the details, 49% believe abortion should be limited, at most up to six weeks. 72% support a 15 week limit. this is an issue that divides us as a nation. where should it be best placed? i believe it is best placed among the elected representatives. the democrats in the senate with whom i have talked about the most recent decision on the epa were upset that the court was taking the role of the legislature, i said it was just the opposite. it should go back to the legislature.

to the elected representatives. that was the point. the same here, for 200 years, it -- for 200 years before roe the states to decide this issue. some states will find themselves on one side of the spectrum and others, the other end. mixed views on it. the american people will havemixed views on it. in terms of these other issues, i am one of the republicans that cosponsors the respect for marriage act and trying to get that done. i think that is important. but i don't think these codifications are required because anything was said in the dobbs decision. senator murphy said the decision suggested these other rights would now be up for grabs. it's just the opposite. one of the justices said that, justice thomas, the others actually also the opposite. the opinion, how it was signed, said the opposite. that that it -- that this issue just relates to abortion and others are different. others, in a concurrence of

justice kavanaugh, he went out of his way to specifically call out that he does not believe that. i do not believe it's a high risk, i believe it's a low risk. i do think that with regard to respect for marriage, having so many couples relied on the decisions that it is appropriate to codify it with a simple codification, but a targeted simple codification, not what we see in the contraception bill or the real codification. sen. murphy: i think senator portman is right. this is an issue that divides us. everybody comes at this issue differently. there are those that believe the decision should be entirely left up to a woman or physician. others believe there are no circumstances in which an abortion is warranted. then there are many that believe there should be some limits. but that is the case i am making. given how personal this issue is, there is really nothing more

personal than this decision of when to proceed with the pregnancy. given how divided we are, it should not be in the hands of government. republicans say, well, the right place for this to be is not in the court, not the congress, but in state legislatures. for me, it does not belong in the hands of government, it should be up to families. i hope you are right, i hope we do not see follow on decisions, but i fear they are coming. lastly, let me thank rob for his support for the respect for marriage act. my hope is that we will pass that either in the next several weeks, or by the end of the session, and i believe it is another moment where we see republicans and democrats come together to move this country forward.

despite how broken this institution appears from the outside, when you put the gun bill, with the potential for the marriage act, the infrastructure bill, the chips act, this is a pretty impressive list of bipartisan accomplishments in a 50-50 senate. in a time of deep division in the american public. all of this, despite disagreements, gives me hope. sen. portman: hope. i think there is some hope. we have seen it in some of the common ground we are talking about. in terms of abortion, maybe not. again, a powerful issue, there are so many strong views. it is interesting looking around the room. -- looking around the world. 90% of countries have laws on the books that prohibit abortion after 15 weeks because it is such a powerful issue and people feel so strongly about it.

i do not think government has no role. i think government does have a role but it ought to be a government closer to the people and we ought to be able to have a dialogue in those states and be able to come up with the best approach for that state. with regard to the broader issue that we talked about today, which is how do we find a common ground, i do agree that we passed some pretty good legislation over the past couple of years. it's never perfect. the infrastructure bill we talked about earlier was not exactly how i would have written it, nor was the gun bill how chris would have written it. but we do have a responsibility having gotten elected to serve the people, meeting getting something done to help people, move the process forward. directionally, we have done that with some of this legislation to make the country more competitive, to give us an opportunity to have our kids and grandkids enjoy what we enjoy, which is to be able to be in this great country, greatest country on the face of the

earth and have all of the opportunities in the world. my hope is we have seen common ground tonight. more importantly we have laid the predicate that our job is not to throw the red meat, but rather to find ways to help the people represented. nikole: i want to thank you. this concludes the first half of this debate. we are going to take a short break to begin our q&a session, so we will ask that you allow us some time while the stagehands take away the podiums from our conversations. in the meantime, take a look at this video for some background on the senate project. [video clip] >> we have several goals for the senator project. first and foremost is to encourage civil debate between the right and left. that has disappeared, and the days of senator kennedy and

senator hatch who are completely opposite human beings, politically, religiously, geographically, yet they worked together and created meaningful legislation that still influences the course of the country today. the symbolism of the relationship between ted kennedy and orin hatch is an enormous, particularly with the senate project. the likelihood of these people coming together to be this productive when their career started was not very high. these are two people who together passed the care act, ada, medicare part d, on and on. our goal is to bring the senate together and have opposite sides respect each other's thought process, to derive results from cross pollination of ideas, and

do what the senate has always done for hundreds of years. the origins of the senate project came out of a board meeting where two board members had just returned from a trip. they saw a body that was deeply divided that had no resemblance to the senate they knew, and felt that we needed to do something to help heal the senate. the second goal of the senator project is to demonstrate the influence of the edward m kennedy institute for the united states senate. we are in a unique position. we have the only replica of the u.s. senate chamber in the world. obviously, there is only one other, that is in washington, d.c. it is symbolic of our commitment to the united states senate to making the senate to be as productive as humanly possible, to teach about the workings of the senate. what we want to do is be part of

this solution and demonstrate the power of the institution. like our mission itself, this effort is a partnership. it is a partnership between the hatch foundation and the bipartisan policy center in washington, and us. our focus has been and continues to be providing civic education for young people. however, we have a bigger role now. the country has changed and our challenges are bigger, our problems are bigger, and it is up to us to step up and do something. ♪

[applause] >> that was as spirited as bernie and lindsay. >> sorry. [laughter] nikole: i want to thank you again. now we will move to the conversation portion of our debate, and i want to start this portion off with some of the breaking news we are learning about at this hour. a short time ago, president biden addressed the nation with respect to the counterterrorism operation that killed an al qaeda operative.

i just want to know at this stage, what do you know about this drone attack? sen. murphy: we were in the skiff together this evening. skiff being a classified setting in the u.s. congress. we were getting a briefing on a different issue, that is where i learned about it. we did not get a heads up, nor should we, these things remain confidential and classified. our sense is this guy was not nearly as charismatic as osama bin laden, but he was directly involved in carrying out attacks against us, our western allies and others. the administration is to be commended for continuing to go after some of these individuals who continue to spew hate and continue to try to kill our allies and our citizens and our

soldiers. sen. murphy: al qaeda is a shell of what it once was, but it is unquestionably still a threat. i was a supporter of the president's decision to leave afghanistan. but, there was this question as to what our capabilities would be to hunt and go after the terrorists inside afghanistan once we were there. we will get more information about this operation, those who -- credit to those who conducted it in the administration. hopefully it helps prove that even without the kind of human intelligence we had, without the presence of thousands of troops, we still have the ability to track networks and find those that are still trying to do harm to the united states. nikole: that being said, this is someone who was the mastermind of 9/11. what does it say that it took more than 20 years to hunt him down?

sen. murphy: it is significant how many al qaeda leaders and isis leader's we have apprehended and killed. that campaign has been effective in crippling their capabilities, at least to project power out of the region, so it is true this particular individual has been at large for a long time, but it's also true we have been routinely taking out the number two, number three, the operational leaders itself. -- the operational leaders themselves throughout the last two decades under republican and democratic presidents. i don't think that's coincidental that there is a lower projection of threats to the united states than there was when we started this project. nikole: i want to get a better sense, because you mentioned this, senator murphy, in terms of the president's decision to leave afghanistan.

i wonder, senator portman, do you think that was a mistake? do you worry it could become a safe haven for terrorists? do either of you see a scenario where the u.s. may have to go back in? sen. portman: i was very critical of the way the administration exited afghanistan. we cannot stay there forever, but it was precipitous, hurried, and dangerous. it resulted in the loss of lives. 13 service members, including one from ohio. i visited the family afterwards to thank them for their service. we did not have to do it that way. we had not lost anybody in 18 months. we had the ability to keep our airbase in particular secure while we did something in a more orderly way. the result was, once our air

cover was gone, the afghans were not able to protect themselves . they had been relying on it. we have not gone to the point where they could be self-sufficient without that airpower. it was a huge mistake. most people realized it. certainly, when there was the rush on the airport outside of kabul. or if it conditions. we also ended up taking a lot of people -- horrific conditions. we also ended up taking a lot of people who because of the rush nature had nothing to do with helping u.s. service members, yet we are bringing them into united states, often without proper screening. we have over 100,000 people, many of whom if they were translators, drivers, absolutely deserved something better than what they got. they certainly deserved to come to the united states, but they have not been able to. both the wrong people came in some cases that had no

connection, and in fact some have been considered national security threats. a small number, but some. then we left a lot of people behind. friends of mine who served in afghanistan are so distraught from that because they feel as though the those of the military not to leave any member behind was violated. i do not understand why it had to be so precipitous and hurried and unplanned and why we had to have such a disastrous result for some of our service members, but also for some of the afghans that helped us so much. i hope we will not have to go back. because of the way we left we did not leave in place the ability to deal with the terrorist threat. my concern was al qaeda, isis and others would come back into what they consider a terrorist haven that's exactly what . that's exactly what happened. the afghan people have also

suffered greatly under the taliban in terms of the economy, starvation, women being repressed as they were in the previous taliban administration. it's a very unfortunate situation all the way around. sen. murphy: rob and i have different perspectives on this. i think president trump left remember, he is the one that signed the agreement with the taliban guaranteeing the united states would leave on a date certain. president biden extended that date unilaterally aggravating that agreement. if he had chosen to stay longer, his military advisors were telling him he would have to send in thousands of additional troops because the taliban would start attacking us again. what happened, of course, is that unexpectedly overnight, both the afghan government and the afghan military collapsed. you could make an argument that the administration should have

seen that coming. but even if we had, i do not know how you manage to pull off an evacuation about size in a way that does not involve some level of chaos, some level of danger. when your partners literally pack up and disappear overnight without warning, without notice. as the afghan military and afghan government did. those scenes were heartbreaking, the loss of life was heartbreaking, but sometimes we set up these unrealistic expectations for political leaders, especially on questions of national security in far-off places. i think given the circumstances of how the evacuation played out with the abdication of our partners, unfortunately the -- there was no precedent -- having made the decision to

leave certainly had consensus on both sides of the aisle. i don't think there was a way to do that much cleaner than the way it turned out. i know there is disagreement on that. it's just my perspective. sen. portman: disagreement on that. definitely. there was a way to do it in a way that was not as hurried and chaotic. it still would not have been easy, it never is to extract yourself from that type of commitment, but to this day i can't understand why president biden did not follow the advice of his military commanders on the ground who did predict some of this. some are saying it was not predictable. it was quite predictable. the question is, if you told the -- could you have done over a longer period of time and told the taliban, if you do attack us, we will use the full power of the united states government against you, and they did not want that fury to be at least on them. so i did think there was a way to do this. now, i don't have any choice but to continue to monitor the

situation there as we did apparently to find this terrorist cell, this al qaeda terrorist cell. i'm not suggesting we should go back in with troops on the ground, but we have to continue to pay careful attention to this part of the world. nikole: turning to a different part of the world and that is asia. as you know, speaker pelosi has lead a delegation to the region. we expect it is possible that she could go to taiwan, according to a taiwanese government official. senator portman, you were there recently. senator murphy, you said any visit there should be purposeful. should they go, and do you support more members of congress going to taiwan or is it simply too risky? sen. murphy: speaker pelosi should do what she thinks is right. she has got a much longer history and deeper expertise in china policy and taiwan than i do, and i'm glad the administration is supporting the decision she will make.

today, we don't definitively know the decision. i think it is clear and apparent to everyone that the chinese are expediting their plans. to reintegrate taiwan into mainland china through any means necessary. they may tell us when we do these bilateral meetings that preferences is nonmilitary needs -- means but there's no doubt they are getting ready to use whatever means possible. our policy over the years has been to be somewhat ambiguous about this question of whether or not we will come directly to the defense of taiwan today. we have a policy of providing taiwan with what is necessary for them to defend themselves. i want to make sure that as a body if we decide to change that policy, and some would argue we should, that we do it purposefully, not accidentally. if we are going to essentially

guarantee taiwan's security, that requires a pretty significant reorientation of forces. that requires a dramatic increase in military spending. i want to have a conversation with my constituents about whether they are supportive of that kind of reorientation. but to sort of fall backwards into an implicit security guarantee i just do not know is necessary today. right now, that ambiguity -- i think that question is an important one but it is one i think we should engage in deep consultation with our constituents before we essentially lead ourselves onto a path that may ultimately result in certain conflict with china. nikole: -- sen. portman:.

it is a dangerous and volatile part of the world because china has been increasingly aggressive not just in the taiwan straight but the south taiwan sea. japan is worried, all of the countries are worried. the entire pacific rim, for good reason. because china is flexing its muscle and doing so in an aggressive way, military expansion including taking a coral reef and turning it into a military base in disputed waters in the philippines would tell you that was illegal, but they do it. i think it's true there is a danger in the region, and the united states can't be a police officer for the world. but we can be kind of like the sheriff and that means you get a posse together. and that posse is the other countries in the region who absolutely align with us. i was there in april, three months ago, visiting australia and japan, it was fascinating.

the same thing is happening with nato. because of china's actions, our allies and we are closer together than ever. the quad which includes india is also having very productive talks, we are closer than ever with australia and japan and india. through the quad. that is the only silver lining in an otherwise dark cloud, which is china's aggression. which we go to taiwan, i thought our visit there in april was helpful. i what with the chairman -- chair of the foreign relations committee, democrats will is a group of republicans and we had very good opportunities to talk about specifics in terms of what kinds of military approaches we -- they might take to protect themselves, to act as a deterrent from china making a huge mistake in doing what russia has done in ukraine which is to attack a sovereign, independent country.

that is a democracy. that is an ally of ours in the western world. and has a lot of allies in the region. one would hope china would see this makes no sense, no logic. we also talk about other issues, including semiconductors. perhaps you know this because of the recent debate we have had about semiconductors and there is more understanding about the importance of this one product. who would have thunk? sort of like oil at the later part of the 21st century is chips, semiconductors. they are in everything. as we are more electronic and more digital, even more so. 90% of the high-end semiconductors are made in one country. that is taiwan. we already have a vested interest in a country that is a democracy, independent, that turns to us, that trades with us. shares our values.

that is taiwan. we now have a very strong commercial interest in ensuring taiwan is not attacked and we don't lose access to 90% of the high-end semiconductors in the world and one country. it's a very important country. i hope speaker pelosi makes a decision she believes is best, but that she goes and does what we did three months ago, which was in the face of china writing letters to my office, i guess to me, my office didn't show me the letter until i was on the plane. so i had no choice but to go. [laughter] but seriously, they would a letter saying if you go, you will be met by a counteraction and a counteraction was some -- which was they flew some jets across the taiwan straight line. i think it was fighter jets, maybe eight of them. that was the extent of it. in this case, they may do more if speaker pelosi goes. but think about the alternative.

the united states speaker of the house. by the way, was supposed to go before our trip, this was a -- but had to cancel because of covid. so this was a previously scheduled trip. our trip was very productive. and important. she says, i'm not going to go because of these threats from china that i, as the u.s. speaker cannot visit an ally, democracy, independent country. our visit was consistent with both the taiwan relations act and the one china policy just as speaker gingrich's trip and some others have been. i think it would be a big mistake because i think it shows weakness and it shows the commonest party of china that if you rattle the cage, the united states will respond by backing off. i suppose you can do a lot of this virtually.

i think it will be a message that will be interpreted as the united states not being willing to do just the normal course of diplomacy, much less be engaged in a deeper way in the region. to try to be a counterbalance to what is happening. with regard to china's aggression i talked about earlier. nikole: very briefly before we wrap up in terms of foreign policy, i do want to get both of you on ukraine because i know you had worked across the aisle on that specifically. we know today the biden administration announced an additional $550 million in security assistant. congress approved the $40 million which was due to run out later this fall, the end of september. is there another supplemental package in the works, what would both of you like to see in it and do you expect the same level of bipartisan support we saw earlier this spring? [laughter] sen. portman: chris and i have

been to ukraine together. and we have talked a lot about this issue. there is a group of republicans and democrats and we start this after the 2014 russian invasion. now it's expanding beyond that, in southern and eastern ukraine and maybe beyond. and maybe beyond ukraine. but we have stuck together as republicans and democrats and said this is a country that has turned to the west. the whole revolution of dignity that happened in 2014 you may recall that in living color, we got to see it all on tv. we had massive demonstrations. i went there as an election monitor and got to see their -- a fair election where, by the way, everyone voted in the entire country.

as compared to what we do here. chris and i would both agree was really disheartening to see the russian buildup. we took the last delegation before the invasion. we were less surprised than the global community because our military intelligence was quite good. intelligence community generally did a good job to analyze what was going on. when they saw hospitals and blood banks being set under the border of ukraine, something was going on. it was not just a military exercise. it was hard to imagine russia would do this. it made no sense. this is a freedom loving neighbor that just wants to get along with its neighbors including russia.

and providing no offensive threat to russia. it's extraordinary this has happened. now the question is, can the united states sustain help for ukraine? we are leading a group of 42 countries that have provided aid. it's not just us. we are leading that group. with the u.k., i would say. they have been very active. helping to distribute it properly and so on. this latest tranche announced today provides weapons for longer-range artillery which are changing the battlefield, we believe, in eastern ukraine, finally. i think that is the only way you get russia to the table is to change the dynamic. the pressure continues to flatten cities and gaining ground. don't think bottom i put in the table. that is why think it is important for us to continue the assistance because they are our friend and ally, and we have to stand up in this case.

to this kind of naked aggression. first time since world war ii we have seen a european country invaded. it is extraordinary what has happened. we have to respond. importantly, if we don't continue the assistance and providing more sophisticated weaponry, i don't think russia comes to the table. we saw the ships sail out of the harbor in odessa today, that was great news. finally, the grain shipments continue to go. by the same token, the russians continue to bombard these areas. including bombarding ukraine, odessa, 10 days ago. totally in violation of an agreement they had just signed. you can't make this up. i hope we will pass another bill. it will be harder. because the patience of the american people is weighing to a -- waning to a certain extent. it's something we need to remind people, what the stakes are.

what is happening and why. what is the rationale? i hope we continue to send the right equipment. we are finally getting to that point. such a long answer, but i think we will need to help again by the end of the year. nikole: i guess bottom line, by the end of the year. that was my question, when do you feel another package could come? sen. murphy: i think we will likely need another package by the end of the year at the rate we are drawing down the current authorization. i give tremendous credit to rob. they are very good. there is a risk. news outlets do not cover ukraine every night like they did in the early days and all of a sudden, we start elevating other priorities. to the extent this is still a bipartisan priority, it's a

large share due to the persistence on this. just two additional thoughts. rob is probably the only senator who has been to ukraine more than i have. i used to go with john mccain in the early days and have an grateful to join with rob on a few of these later trips. two additional points. connecting back to this conversation about china. president xi is watching. what is happening in ukraine right now. his taste for moving earlier on taiwan is directly connected to whether or not he sees russia pay a long-term price. and whether he sees the battle lines start to move. putin thought he was going to roll straight into kyiv. people fight hard to defend their territory, especially when they have friends. taiwan is going to fight very hard. they are going to have friends too. our ability to continue to support ukraine is critical to the question.

second, this town has a tendency to do everything through a military lens and really important to understand the long game of the russians. what they are seeking to do in part with the oil crisis is to try to weaken the appetite of the west, europe and the united states, to stay in the fight, to get european nations to just cut a deal with russia. stop supply weapons, get cheaper oil. rob and i have worked to build the government capability to spin back against russian propaganda. not in the united states, our efforts are really trying to help european countries, countries in eastern europe fight russian propaganda. that is really important right now because russia is in the business right now of trying to convince europe to give up. to give in. it is not worth it. and we can assist in telling the truth about what is happening in ukraine. and keeping up our partners appetite to stay in the fight. that's not about military assistance, it is about

information assistance. a new capability that we started at the state department global engagement center. nikole: i want to bring things back here at home very briefly. an issue involving our own military and veterans. as you know, you have the pact act, a bipartisan bill you both supported back in june to provide more health benefits to service members who have been exposed to toxic burn pits during deployments but now, you are on opposite sides. i think a lot of people are wondering why senator murphy you and two dozen of your colleagues flipped. you have veterans outside the u.s. capitol. what is it going to take from both sides to get this done before the recess? augustsen. portman:. i did not flip at all. i voted as i did a month ago, because i thought we allow an amendment process, the video earlier, the comment was made that the senate is not what it used to be.

the blame goes to individuals for being too partisan, that is maybe part of it but also, our leadership and not allowing debate, not allowing what we are looking for which is the ability to introduce an amendment. nikole: is it worth holding up the bill over one amendment? sen. portman: absolutely. in the end, we will resolve that and vote for the bill. i'm going to vote for final passage whether the amended passes or not. it is important we have the opportunities to take -- this is $280 billion. when you look at the budget, it can be another $350 billion that would be spent on nonveteran affairs matters, it's not about the veterans, they get the same amount. you would have more domestic discretionary spending because of this slight of hand.

i know what this means, i want to stand with my colleagues and have the opportunity to debate on this at least. i think we will. i think you will see the legislation passed even this week. i talked this afternoon about it. i'm trying to encourage democratic leadership to allow a real amendment process. when those two gentlemen were in their prime, the senate debated all the time. we were viewed as the world's greatest deliberative body. as senator murphy will tell you we have very few amendments. ,that goes with republicans and democrats in charge. by the way, that goes for democrats and republicans in charge. it is easier to make it a partisan issue. even on the of the structure bill, we wanted more amendment. any other bill in recent memory, we had 26. it was not enough. we think people should be able to voice their concerns. so i voted the same way last

time which was i voted against closure so we could have this amendment passed. we lost the vote that time. this time i did the same thing. so my colleagues were with me in doing that. others changed their closure vote. the point is, i think if we can have the opportunity to have this one important amendment we will end up voting for final passage in a big bipartisan way. sen. murphy:. count me in for having a more open amendment process. i think you are exactly right. the senate has changed in part because power has been further consolidated in leaders but majority leader and minority leader, it used to be the chairman of the committees worked the bills, allow for full and open amendments. if we get back to that it is a much better senate. i didn't know rob's votes on this bill. i am glad to hear he was consistent because there are a

lotta people head scratching as to why there were 24 republican senators that voted to advance the bill the first time and changed their votes the second time. the objection senator -- raised i heard them talking about it on the floor. it wasn't as if it was a mystery. so why did 25 senators choose a different path when the same bill with the same issue that he raised was present the second time? there are two explanations. a massive change of heart, which rarely happens in this place at that kind of number and scope or it was a reaction to the announcement of a climate change bill. i don't think the american public are going to tolerate that kind of gamesmanship but my hope is we can get this done and resolved. nikole: as we conclude i do want

to leave with some thoughts on where there is common ground. because this is the fourth time in a history that we have had a 50-50 senate i am really curious to find out what lessons both of you have learned from this experience and i know a lot of people think especially in an election year, it is hard to get things done, but where do you think you can find common ground before the session ends and beyond? sen. portman:. i will start this one. i will talk about two lessons i have learned coming off the passage of the first gun bill in 60 years. the two things i learned through that process and through the now almost decade i have been in the senate, i am still fairly new. one is that relationships matter. when i got to the senate right after sandy hook, i was

introducing myself to colleagues at the same time i was trying to lobby them on a controversial bill. universal background checks. it does take time to build up trust. for rob to get something big as big as infrastructure, he had to have trust you finally convince partners, you have to have trust. sometimes in today's senate, we have so little time to spend together and little time to get to know each other. we have got to find a way to take the time to build that trust. the second thing is to try to not litigate everything through social media. sen. portman:. color me guilty. far too quick to run to my twitter feed to complain but the reason we got that gun bill done was because we did not litigate our differences in public. we kept them private and in this age of the media's to -- the immediate ability to communicate your thoughts often

that accrues to our detriment not benefit. my hope for a small but important thing that can get done is our next project which is before the electoral count act, which governs how electors are chosen and counted, ambiguous, full of holes that people can take advantage of if they are trying to put someone in the office who did not win an election and we have been part of a bipartisan group that has a proposal on the table that would fix that and make it more certain the winner of an election has an expedited path to the white house next time around. that is on the dockets i hope for next year. nikole: -- sen. portman: hope. i think hope is even in the next four months we can get some things done. i have four or five projects i would like to have completed by the end of the year.

one is on retirement security as an example. it has always been a bipartisan issue and senator cardin and i have legislation we think can be bipartisan and be passed to help with iras and small businesses and self-employed and so on. so that is an example of something very meaningful to my constituents that we have not been able to get done for the past four or five years and i think we can now. i think the infrastructure experience was interesting because we started in the middle and worked out. rather than as senator murphy was saying, leadership tends to have more influence and power but we made a decision we were not going to either side, starting with two of us and the four of us, eight of us and moved out. found out that there was actually a lot of consensus around taking the tax increases out, making it really about infrastructure and making compromises. a dirty word for some but that's what you have to do when you are behind closed doors negotiating. you have to move forward.

the alternative was to spend another few decades without an infrastructure bill that had put the united states way behind other developing countries in terms of our ability to deal with a whole range of issues, including resiliency which is something we are experiencing right now with more climate issues. that same group that formed the nucleus of that, and chris is part of that group, is now going onto to work on several other things together. when is the electoral count act which, to put it simply, would never allow a january 6 moment to happen again. the vice president's role becomes a ministerial, as an example which is the way of we think the founders intended it. it is possible to get some things done toward the end. i do think the political season is upon us and that makes it more challenging. i think both parties in the senate believe they can get the majority, democrats can keep it, republicans can get it.

in the house i think there is more of a sense republicans are likely to take the majority. it makes the senate more interesting because we don't really know. on something like a reform effort to the rules of the senate we are talking about poor the rules of the congress in terms of the electoral count act and it actually goes beyond that. a goes to the presidential transition process and so on, we don't know who is going to be in charge. in a way, it makes it easier. you are kind of flipping a coin. it could be as, it could be you, so let's do the right thing. my hope is we will get some good stuff done and have the opportunity to show people we can work together. i think changing the rules of the senate to allow more debate is a good thing. i think the trust factor chris talked about is absolutely true. it is not just getting to know people, it is knowing who you can trust and who you cannot, and who you can work with, and to the media who are here, i think playing everything out in the media is almost as detrimental as playing it out on social media sometimes.

you are frustrated with me when i don't tell you every negotiating moment because it is important to be able to have that trust and if it is played out in the public sometimes before it is ready, it makes it more difficult to get there. i think those are some lessons learned and my hope is we can continue to make progress by following guidelines and get more things done. thanks, nicole for moderating us tonight. giving us from fighting each other. nikole: [laughter] i want to thank both of you for your time, for joining us. it really has been a pleasure. we want to give our huge huge thanks to george washington university, the staff here at the jack martin center along with production manager, tom gorman. the next senate project debate will take place in utah hosted by the orangey hatch foundation. you can go to the senateproject.org for more details. for now, i'm nicole killian, congressional correspondent for

cbs news. thank you and everyone have a good night. [applause] ♪ >> house speaker nancy pelosi landed in taipei a short time ago. she is leading a congressional delegation in the indo pacific

region. this is the first official visit to taiwan by a house speaker in 25 years. a statement released by her office says, our congressional delegation's visit to taiwan honors america's unwavering commitment to taiwan's unwavering democracy. our trip as part of a larger trip the end of pacific. the statement goes on to read our discussions with taiwan leadership will focus on reaffirming our support for our partner and on promoting our shared interest including advancing a free and open indo pacific region. today, a hearing on the future of wireless communications. a senate subcommittee holds a hearing on the fcc auction of radio frequencies that wireless signals use. watch live on c-span. also on our free mobile video app, c-span now, or online at c-span.org.